Perkins v. Stickney
| Decision Date | 30 January 1882 |
| Citation | 132 Mass. 217 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | James D. Perkins & another v. Charles D. Stickney & others |
Suffolk. Contract upon an account annexed for coal sold and delivered. The answer set up a warranty by the plaintiffs that the coal should be first-class coal, and fully equal to the coal sold by one Job, and alleged a breach of the warranty. Trial in the Superior Court, before Staples, J who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:
The plaintiffs were wholesale coal-dealers in New York. The defendants were wholesale and retail coal-dealers in Fall River. There was evidence tending to show that the warranty applied to coal sold by said Job to Joseph A. Bowen & Company of Fall River, competitors of the defendants, and sold by Bowen & Company to the mills in Fall River for steam purposes.
In order to prove the poor quality of the plaintiffs' coal the defendants called a witness, who testified that he was the treasurer of one of the mills in Fall River; that it had been his duty to buy, and he had in fact bought, all the coal used in his mill to generate steam since it was built, a period of seven or eight years; that he knew of the quality of coal burned in his mill only by the reports which he required the engineer to furnish him weekly; that he occasionally went into or passed through the engine-room and fire-room; and that his mills had used one lot of coal bought of Bowen & Company, and also coal bought of the defendants.
The witness was thereupon asked the following questions by the defendants: "What are the comparative merits, as to the production of steam power, of the coal sold you by Bowen, and that sold you by the defendants?" "How many tons of Bowen's coal are equal, in efficiency for steam purposes, to how many tons of the defendants' coal?" The judge excluded the questions, on the ground that the witness did not appear to be an expert, or to know about the subject of the inquiry.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs; and the defendants alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
S. H. Dudley & W. P. Dudley, for the defendants.
C. T. Gallagher, for the plaintiffs.
Whether a witness who is called as an expert has the requisite qualifications and knowledge to enable him to testify, is a preliminary question for the court. The decision of this question is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Clark Iron Co.
...See Start, C. J., in Meyers v. McAllister, 94 Minn. 510, collecting cases at page 512, 103 N. W. 564, at page 565. Cf. Perkins v. Stickney, 132 Mass. 217. There was proof, accordingly, first, that Gen. Baker located the land in question and the land officer filled in the description accordi......
-
Rogers v. Clark Iron Co.
...See Start, C. J., in Meyers v. McAllister, 94 Minn. 510, collecting cases at page 512, 103 N. W. 564, at page 565. Cf. Perkins v. Stickney, 132 Mass. 217. There was proof, accordingly, first, that General Baker located the land in question and the land officer filled in the description acco......
-
Scanlon v. Kansas City
... ... 95; 3 Wigmore on Evidence (2 Ed.), sec ... 1388; 4 Jones on Evidence (2 Ed.), sec. 2025, p. 3753; ... Chase v. Mills Co., 75 Me. 156; Perkins v ... Stickney, 132 Mass. 217; Edgeley v. Appleyard, ... 110 Me. 339. (k) The hypothetical question from the trial of ... 1902 was offered and ... ...
-
Rogers v. Clark Iron Co.
...evidence. See Start, C.J., in Meyers v. McAllister, 94 Minn. 510, collecting cases at page 512, 103 N.W. 564, at page 565. Cf. Perkins v. Stickney, 132 Mass. 217. There was proof, accordingly, first, that General located the land in question and the land officer filled in the description ac......